Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that rows carry spread_cents and move_cents, useful output context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or the row-count limits an agent would want to know.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose and filter set front-loaded before the workflow hint. Nothing wasted and no buried information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter screening tool with an output schema (so returns need not be explained), the description covers the main filter dimensions and a safety pointer. It still leaves the sort enum, the full flag, and default limit/pagination behavior unaddressed, which are non-trivial for this parameter count.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 45%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the seven screening concepts (league, group, volume, price, spread, time to close, 24-hour move) that map onto the eleven filters, and clarifies spread_cents/move_cents fields. It stops short of disambiguating min/max price or the sort/full flags.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (screen) and resource (open markets), then enumerates the screening dimensions (league, group, volume, price, spread, time to close, 24-hour move). The agent understands this is a filtered discovery tool, though it is not explicitly distinguished from siblings list_markets or search_markets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"get_market before trading" gives a downstream workflow pointer, implying screen results are candidates to be inspected before acting. However, it never states when to prefer screen_markets over list_markets or search_markets, nor any exclusions, so the choice between the three discovery tools remains implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.